The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph (Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025), has ruled that a child’s right to know their biological parent must be balanced against the right to privacy and dignity of the individuals involved. The Court emphasized that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely based on allegations of adultery, reaffirming that the legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 remains conclusive unless rebutted by proving ‘non-access’ between spouses.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a prolonged legal battle concerning the paternity of Milan Joseph, the respondent, who was born during the subsistence of his mother’s marriage to Mr. Raju Kurian. Alleging that Ivan Rathinam, the appellant, was his biological father, Milan Joseph and his mother sought to change his birth records and demanded a DNA test to establish paternity. However, the appellant resisted the claim, arguing that the presumption of legitimacy in law prevailed and that subjecting him to a DNA test would violate his right to privacy and dignity.
The dispute, which had been litigated across multiple forums, saw the Family Court initially closing the maintenance petition in 2010, contingent upon the outcome of a civil suit on paternity. However, in 2015, the Family Court revived the case, allowing for a fresh determination of paternity, a decision later upheld by the Kerala High Court in 2018. The appellant challenged the revival before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered the following central questions:
1. Can the presumption of legitimacy determine paternity in law?
2. Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to decide paternity, or is it within the exclusive domain of the Family Court?
3. Is a DNA test mandatory when paternity is disputed, particularly in cases involving allegations of adultery?
4. Was the second round of litigation barred by res judicata?
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Delivering the judgment, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that:
– Legitimacy determines paternity unless rebutted – The Court underscored that under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the offspring of the husband. To rebut this, ‘non-access’ between the spouses must be proven, not mere allegations of infidelity.
– Privacy and dignity outweigh forced DNA tests – The Court stated that compelling an individual to undergo a DNA test without substantial evidence of non-access amounts to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, the bench reaffirmed that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
– A second round of litigation is barred by res judicata – The Court held that since the respondent’s legitimacy had been conclusively decided in prior proceedings, reopening the case on the pretext of maintenance was legally impermissible.
– Family Court’s revival of maintenance proceedings was erroneous – The Supreme Court set aside the Family Court’s decision to reopen the maintenance case, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to re-examine paternity when legitimacy had already been established.
Important Observations of the Court
The judgment makes crucial observations regarding the interplay between legitimacy, paternity, and the right to privacy:
“Legitimacy and paternity may be distinct in scientific terms, but the law presumes paternity based on legitimacy unless rebutted by cogent evidence.”
“A fishing inquiry into private affairs, particularly one that may cast aspersions on the dignity of individuals, cannot be permitted through forced DNA testing.”
“The right to privacy and dignity cannot be sacrificed at the altar of mere allegations of adultery.”
“The principle of res judicata exists to prevent perpetual litigation. When a question is conclusively decided, reopening it under a different guise cannot be allowed.”
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court and Family Court orders. It ruled that:
– The respondent is legally presumed to be the son of Mr. Raju Kurian.
– The maintenance case before the Family Court stands quashed.
– Any claims of paternity against the appellant are invalid.
– The Family Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter once legitimacy was settled.
